Slashdot Mirror
Apple Sued Over iPhone Bricking
An anonymous reader writes "The week's debate over the iPhone 1.1.1 has finally resulted in legal action. InfoWeek reports that on Friday, California resident Timothy Smith sued Apple in a class-action case in Santa Clara County Superior court. The suit was filed by Damian Fernandez, the lawyer who's been soliciting plaintiffs all week for a case against Apple. The suit doesn't ask for a specific dollar amount, but seeks an injunction against Apple, which prevents it from selling the iPhone with any software lock. It also asks that Apple be enjoined from denying warranty service to users of unlocked iPhone, and from requiring iPhone users to get their phone service through AT&T."
I just can't wait for OfCOM to get their hands on Apple when the iPhone launches in the UK. I know I will be the first to complete a complaints for to them on the day of the release.
Apple bricking the phone is not illegal, nor should it be. When Apple sold the phone, they were crystal clear that its only supported use was with AT&T and Apple-approved apps. Those that disagree with the policy should not have bought the phone.
Now, if Apple was suing folks for unlocking the phone, that would have been something else (and certainly brings to the forefront debates on shrinkwrap, reverse engineering rights, etc.) but they have not. The proper response to this bricking is another hack, not a lawsuit.
Apple is also perfectly within their rights to not give warranty service to those that modded their phone. The Magnuson-Moss Act only provides protection to those whose aftermarket bits did not cause the phone to die. If these folks had not modded their phone, the update would not have killed it. The act was meant to protect those that say, bought ordinary aftermarket headphones... automatically denying warranty service for THAT would be a blatant violation of the Act. For folks that would avail themselves of the Act, even a liberal interpretation would mean they would have to prove that Apple's update deliberately disabled the phone. Given how many things that can go wrong with code updates, I would be surprised if Apple simply just did not test on an unlocked phone, and the process just happens to brick the thing. Apple probably bricked many legit phones during their testing process until they got the bugs worked out...
SirWired
I wonder how Apple will sell their iPhone in Europe. It is forbidden by the European consumer laws to sell a phone where you force users to a certain provider. I'm really curious.
The solution?
http://www.openmoko.org/
So If I void my warranty, that gives Apple the right to break my phone?
Speaking of re-purchase, I'm thoroughly annoyed, having just got a new phone from the same provider as my last one, that I have to repurchase the games I downloaded to my last phone. Same phone number, same contract and everything, but I'd have to repurchase the games to get them onto my new phone. That makes just /so/ much sense.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
At the very least Apple should allow people to wipe everything and begin anew.
And that is my understanding of exactly what the update does. It doesn't "brick" the phone, it resets it to an out-of-box unregistered state. If the phone has already been registered with AT&T and if that account is still active, it's trivial to reattach it.
I reject the bad car analogy. a) Buy a new BMW. b) Hack the ECU (engine control unit) computer and reload it with your own software. What do you think the BMW service center is going to to with your warrantee (and your blown engine) if they figure out what you did? Suppose the tweaks you made work, and some how a software update from the mechanic works too, but the combination is fatal to the engine. Should this be covered by warrantee?
Am I the only person who thinks that Apple probably does not mind this lawsuit? Apple doesn't seem like the company who would want to sell service tied to one provider anyway, they would either want to sell devices that work with any provider or provide the service themselves. They were likely forced to lock the phones as a condition of getting on anyone's network, and starting their own network is impossible until more spectrum gets auctioned off. I'll bet that Apple was counting on a reaction like this, and has a provision buried in their contract with AT&T that says if a court forces them to unlock the phones, they can do so without invalidating their access to the network and AT&T can't complain.
I got bored and one site recommended filing a FCC complaint so I did, saying that they wouldn't unlock my phones after 90 days of service like their other phones.
I got a call from the office of the president for AT&T. Unfortunately I was downstairs celebrating my daughters birthday so haven't been able to talk to them to see what happens, but I was pretty dang surprised.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
In addition, I hope this suit goes through even IF Apple didn't deliberately brick people's phones, as it could help move the cause of mandated unlocking forward.
You've learned valuable lesson here - don't mess with things you don't understand. You immediately voided your warranty, again something you were fully aware that you'd be doing As someone else pointed out, the warranty should not be void for all things because you messed with the software. If the solder on the circuit board turns to dust, that's poor workmanship, has nothing to do with the software, and should be covered regardless of any software modifications you've made."16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard